Citation Nr: 0400530
Decision Date: 01/08/04 Archive Date: 01/22/04
DOCKET NO. 02-09 090 ) DATE
)
)
On appeal from the
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in
Albuquerque, New Mexico
THE ISSUE
Whether new and material evidence has been submitted to
reopen a claim of entitlement to service connection for
hypertension.
REPRESENTATION
Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans
ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD
K. Johnson, Counsel
INTRODUCTION
The veteran served on active duty from January 1985 to July
1985.
The claims file contains a report of a decision in August
1992 wherein entitlement to service connection for
hypertension was denied.
The current appeal comes to the Board of Veterans' Appeals
(Board) from a decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs
(VA) Regional Office (RO) in Albuquerque, New Mexico. In
June 2000, the RO apparently reopened and denied the claim of
service connection for hypertension as not well grounded.
Subsequently, the Veterans Claims Assistance Act of 2000
(VCAA), Pub. L. No. 106-475, 114 Stat. 2096 (2000), was
signed into law. As the VCAA eliminated the statutory
requirement that a veteran submit a well-grounded claim, the
RO readjudicated and denied the claim on the merits in July
2001.
Even though the RO reopened the claim of entitlement to
service connection for hypertension, the Board is required to
consider whether the appellant has submitted new and material
evidence to reopen the claim before considering the claim on
the merits. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 7104(b), 5108 (West 2002);
Barnett v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 1 (1995). Such consideration
is set forth in the decision below.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. All notification and development action needed to fairly
adjudicate the claim on appeal has, to the extent possible,
been accomplished.
2. The RO denied the claim of service connection for
hypertension when it issued an unappealed rating decision in
August 1992.
3. Evidence submitted since the August 1992 rating decision
wherein the RO denied the claim of entitlement to service
connection for hypertension is neither cumulative nor
redundant; and by itself or in connection with evidence
previously assembled, is so significant that it must be
considered in order to fairly decide the merits of the claim.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
Evidence submitted since the RO denied the claim of
entitlement to service connection for hypertension in August
1992 is new and material, and the veteran's claim for that
benefit is reopened. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5104, 5108, 7105 (West
2002); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.104(a), 3.156(a), 20.1103 (2003).
REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION
Factual Background
The evidence, which was of record prior to the August 1992
decision wherein the RO denied entitlement to service
connection for hypertension, is reported in pertinent part
below.
The service medical history reports completed in 1984 and
1985, are negative for hypertension. The service entrance
examination of March 1984 shows that the veteran's blood
pressure was 104/74.
In May 1992, the veteran filed a claim alleging entitlement
to service connection for hypertension. By letter of June
1992, the RO requested information from the veteran
concerning his claim. A response was not received, and the
RO denied the claim in August 1992 based on the veteran's
failure to prosecute the claim and the lack of evidence
showing hypertension during service or the manifestation of
hypertension to a compensable degree within one year of
separation from service. Notice of the decision, including
information concerning the veteran's appellate rights, was
issued in August 1992. Appellate action was not initiated.
The evidence associated with the claims file following the
August 1992 decision wherein the RO denied entitlement to
service connection for hypertension is reported in pertinent
part below.
The veteran filed an application to reopen the claim in
December 1999. By rating action of June 2000, the RO denied
the claim on the basis that it was not well grounded as there
was no record of hypertension showing chronic disability
subject to service connection. Notice of the decision,
including information concerning the veteran's appellate
rights, was issued in June 2000.
In December 2000, the veteran's representative submitted
copies of medical records and a written statement arguing
that the medical records constituted new and material
evidence to reopen the claim.
A diagnosis of hypertension is documented in records dated in
1989, 1990 and 1991. Other records dated in 1986, reflect
the veteran's complaints of chest pain.
Criteria
Finality and Materiality
An application, formal or informal, which has been allowed or
disallowed by the agency of original jurisdiction, becomes
final by the expiration of one year after the date of notice
of an award or disallowance, or by denial on appellate
review, whichever is the earlier. 38 C.F.R. § 3.160(d).
A determination on a claim by the agency of original
jurisdiction of which the claimant is properly notified is
final if an appeal is not perfected. When the Board affirms
a determination of the agency of original jurisdiction, such
determination is subsumed by the final appellate decision.
38 U.S.C.A. §§ 7104, 7105; 38 C.F.R. §§
20.1103, 20.1104.
A decision of a duly constituted rating agency or other
agency of original jurisdiction shall be final and binding on
all field offices of the Department of Veterans Affairs as to
conclusions based on the evidence on file at the time VA
issues written notification in accordance with 38 U.S.C.A.
§ 5104 (West 2002).
A final and biding agency decision shall not be subject to
revision on the same factual basis except by duly constituted
appellate authorities or except as provided in 38 C.F.R.
§ 3.105. 38 C.F.R. § 3.104(a) (2003).
If new and material evidence is presented or secured with
respect to a claim that has been disallowed, the Secretary
shall reopen the claim and review the former disposition of
the claim. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5108; Hickson v. West, 12 Vet. App.
247 (1999); Manio v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 140, 145 (1991).
New and material evidence is defined as evidence not
previously submitted to agency decision makers which bears
directly and substantially upon the specific matter under
consideration; which is neither cumulative nor redundant; and
which, by itself or in connection with evidence previously
assembled, is so significant that it must be considered in
order to fairly decide the merits of the claim. 38 C.F.R. §
3.156(a).
It has been held that, in accordance with 38 C.F.R. § 3.156,
evidence is new and material if it (1) was not of record at
the time of the last final disallowance of the claim and is
not merely cumulative of evidence of record; (2) is probative
of the issue at hand; and (3) is significant enough, either
by itself or in connection with other evidence in the record,
that it must be considered to decide the merits of the claim.
See Anglin v. West, 203 F.3d 1343, 1345-1346 (Fed. Cir. 2000)
(upholding the first two prongs of the Cohen new and
materiality test while defining how materiality is
established (the third prong as listed above)); see also
Shockley v. West, 11 Vet. App. 208 (1998); Evans v. Brown, 9
Vet. App. 273, 283 (1996); Colvin v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App.
171 (1991).
When a claim to reopen is presented under section 5108, the
Secretary must first determine whether the evidence presented
or secured since the last final disallowance of the claim is
new and material. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5108; 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(a);
Hodge v. West, 155 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
In Hodge, the CAFC noted that new evidence could be
sufficient to reopen a claim if it could contribute to a more
complete picture of the circumstances surrounding the origin
of a veteran's injury or disability, even where it would not
be enough to convince the Board to grant a claim. Id. at
1363.
For the purpose of establishing whether new and material
evidence has been submitted, the credibility of the evidence,
although not its weight, is to be presumed. Justus v.
Principi, 3 Vet. App. 510, 513 (1992).
In Kutscherousky v. West, 12 Vet. App. 369 (1999), the United
States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) held that
the prior holdings in Justus and Evans that the evidence is
presumed to be credible was not altered by the CAFC decision
in Hodge.
The Board notes that 38 C.F.R. § 3.156 was recently amended,
and that the standard for finding new and material evidence
has changed as a result. 66 Fed. Reg. 45,620, 45,630 (August
29, 2001) (codified at 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(a)).
The change in the law is not applicable in this case because
the appellant's claim was filed before August 29, 2001, the
effective date of the amendment. 66 Fed. Reg. 45,620, 45,629
(August 29, 2001).
A claimant may reopen a finally adjudicated claim by
submitting new and material evidence. New evidence means
existing evidence not previously submitted to agency
decisionmakers. Material evidence means existing evidence
that, by itself or when considered with previous evidence of
record, relates to an unestablished fact necessary to
substantiate the claim. New and material evidence can be
neither cumulative nor redundant of the evidence of record at
the time of the last prior final denial of the claim sought
to be reopened, and must raise a reasonable possibility of
substantiating the claim. 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(a) (2003).
With respect to reopening, the amendments at 38 C.F.R. §
3.156(a), the second sentence of 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c), and 38
C.F.R. § 3.159(c)(4)(iii) redefine new and material evidence
and the duty to assist in applications to reopen previously
and finally denied claims but were made effective as of the
date of publication (August 29, 2001) and apply only to
applications to reopen a previously denied claim filed on or
after August 29, 2001. In this matter, the new regulations
do not apply since the veteran's application to reopen was
filed in December 1999.
General Service Connection
To establish service connection for a claimed disability the
facts must demonstrate that a disease or injury resulting in
current disability was incurred in active military service
or, if pre-existing active service, was aggravated therein.
38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303.
Service connection may be granted for any disease diagnosed
after discharge, when all the evidence, including that
pertinent to service, establishes that the disease was
incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d) (2003).
The CAVC has held that, in order to prevail on the issue of
service connection, there must be medical evidence of a (1)
current disability; (2) medical, or in certain circumstances,
lay evidence of in-service incurrence or aggravation of a
disease or injury; and (3) medical evidence of a nexus
between the claimed in-service disease or injury and the
present disease or injury. Hickson v. West, 12 Vet. App.
247, 253 (1999).
Where there is a chronic disease shown as such in service or
within the presumptive period under § 3.307 so as to permit a
finding of service connection, subsequent manifestations of
the same chronic disease at any later date, however remote,
are service connected, unless clearly attributable to
intercurrent causes. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b) (2003).
This rule does not mean that any manifestation in service
will permit service connection. To show chronic disease in
service there is required a combination of manifestations
sufficient to identify the disease entity, and sufficient
observation to establish chronicity at the time, as
distinguished from merely isolated findings or a diagnosis
including the word "chronic."
When the disease identity is established, there is no
requirement of evidentiary showing of continuity. When the
fact of chronicity in service is not adequately supported,
then a showing of continuity after discharge is required to
support the claim. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b) (2003).
When all the evidence is assembled, VA is responsible for
determining whether the evidence supports the claim or is in
relative equipoise, with the appellant prevailing in either
event, or whether a preponderance of the evidence is against
a claim, in which case, the claim is denied. Gilbert v.
Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102 (2003).
The Secretary shall consider all information and lay and
medical evidence of record in a case before the Secretary
with respect to benefits under laws administered by the
Secretary. When there is an approximate balance of positive
and negative evidence regarding any issue material to the
determination of a matter, the Secretary shall give the
benefit of the doubt to the claimant. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107
(West 2002).
Analysis
Preliminary Matter - Duty to Assist
As stated in the Introduction, the VCAA is applicable to this
appeal. See Karnas v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 308, 312-13
(1991). To implement the provisions of the law, the VA
promulgated regulations published at 66 Fed. Reg. 45,620
(Aug. 29, 2001) (to be codified at 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102,
3.156(a), 3.159, 3.326(a)).
The Act and implementing regulations essentially provide that
VA will assist a claimant in obtaining evidence necessary to
substantiate a claim but is not required to provide
assistance to a claimant if there is no reasonable
possibility that such assistance would aid in substantiating
the claim. It also includes new notification provisions.
The Board finds that further development is not warranted in
view of the favorable decision that follows. In other words,
the Board proceeding to a decision on the question of new and
material evidence in this matter since the outcome results in
the reopening of the claim will not prejudice the veteran.
See Bernard v. Brown, 4 Vet. App. 384, 393 (1993).
New and Material Evidence
The veteran seeks to reopen his claim of entitlement to
service connection for hypertension, which the RO finally
denied in August 1992. When an appellant seeks to reopen a
finally denied claim, the Board must review all of the
evidence submitted since that action to determine whether the
claim should be reopened and readjudicated on a de novo
basis. Glynn v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 523, 529 (1994).
The pertinent evidence submitted in connection with the
veteran's claim to reopen the prior final August 1992
decision consists of private medical records.
The basis of the prior final denial was that the evidence
failed to show hypertension during service or the
manifestation of hypertension within the year of the
veteran's separation from service, as well as the veteran's
failure to prosecute the claim.
When the RO denied the claim in August 1992, the service
medical records were negative for the reported medical
history or diagnosis of hypertension. There were no post-
service records demonstrating the manifestation of the
condition within one year of the veteran's separation from
service. However, the newly received medical records show
that the veteran has been diagnosed with hypertension, and
that he was treated for chest pain in 1986, the year after
his separation from service.
Therefore, unlike in August 1992, the evidence is not lacking
with regard to showing a diagnosis of the condition, which
was essentially the basis for the initial denial of the
claim.
The diagnoses provided by physicians are undoubtedly
considered "new," and such evidence is not cumulative or
duplicative with respect to an essential element of the
veteran's claim, a diagnosis of the claimed condition.
Therefore the evidence bears directly and substantially on
the question at issue. Consequently, the record contains new
and material evidence, such that the Board must reopen the
claim. Manio, supra.
ORDER
The veteran, having submitted new and material evidence to
reopen a claim of entitlement to service connection for
hypertension, the appeal is granted to this extent.
REMAND
This appeal is REMANDED to the RO via the Veterans Benefits
Administration Appeals Management Center (VBA AMC), in
Washington, DC. VA will notify you if further action is
required on your part.
This claim must be afforded expeditious treatment by the VBA
AMC. The law requires that all claims that are remanded by
the Board or by the CAVC for additional development or other
appropriate action must be handled in an expeditious manner.
See The Veterans' Benefits Improvements Act of 1994, Pub. L.
No. 103-446, § 302, 108 Stat. 4645, 4658 (1994), 38 U.S.C.A.
§ 5101 (West 2002) (Historical and Statutory Notes).
In addition, VBA's Adjudication Procedure Manual, M21-1, Part
IV, directs the ROs (or VBA AMC) to provide expeditious
handling of all cases that have been remanded by the Board
and the CAVC. See M21-1, Part IV, paras. 8.44-8.45 and
38.02-38.03.
As discussed above, the Board has determined that new and
material evidence has been submitted to reopen the veteran's
claim of entitlement to service connection for hypertension.
In light of the Board's decision, the entire record must be
reviewed on a de novo basis.
The Board finds that a VA examination is in order. A review
of the file shows that the veteran has not been afforded a VA
examination to determine the nature and etiology of his
hypertension, and the evidence of record is insufficient to
decide the issue of service connection with any certainty.
Since the Board cannot exercise its own independent judgment
on medical matters, further examination is required, to
include an opinion based on review of the entire record.
Colvin v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 171 (1991). Under the VCAA,
a veteran is entitled to a complete VA medical examination
that includes an opinion whether there is a nexus between the
claimed disorder and service based on all possible evidence.
Since a nexus opinion has not been obtained, additional
development is in order in light of the VCAA.
The Board observes that additional due process requirements
may be applied as a result of the enactment of the VCAA and
its implementing regulations. See 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5100, 5102,
5103, 5103A and 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.156(a), 3.159 and
3.326(a).
Accordingly, this case is remanded for the following:
1. The appellant has the right to submit
additional evidence and argument on the
matter or matters the Board has remanded
to the VBA AMC. Kutscherousky v. West,
12 Vet. App. 369 (1999).
2. The veteran should be afforded a VA
cardiology examination by a specialist in
cardiology to determine the current
nature, extent of severity, and etiology
of his hypertension.
The claims folder and a separate copy of
this remand must be made available to and
reviewed by the examiner prior and
pursuant to conduction and completion of
the examination(s). The examiner must
annotate the examination report that the
claims file was in fact made available
for review in conjunction with the
examination. Any further indicated
special studies must be conducted.
The examiner must be requested to express
an opinion as to whether the veteran's
hypertension is related to service, or if
pre-existing service, was aggravated
thereby. The examiner should also opine
as to the date of onset. Any opinions
expressed by the examiner must be
accompanied by a complete rationale.
3. Thereafter, the VBA AMC should review
the claims file to ensure that all of the
foregoing requested development has been
completed. In particular, the VBA AMC
should review the requested examination
report and required opinions to ensure
that they are responsive to and in
complete compliance with the directives
of this remand, and if they are not, the
VBA AMC should implement corrective
procedures. The Board errs as a matter
of law when it fails to ensure
compliance, and further remand will be
mandated. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet.
App. 268 (1998).
In addition, the VBA AMC must review the
claims file to ensure that any other
notification and development action
required by the VCAA, Pub.L. No. 106-475
is completed. In particular, the VBA AMC
should ensure that the new notification
requirements and development procedures
contained in sections 3 and 4 of the Act
(38 U.S.C. §§ 5102, 5103, 5103A and 5107)
are fully complied with and satisfied.
4. After undertaking any development
deemed essential in addition to that
specified above, the VBA AMC should
adjudicate the claim of entitlement to
service connection for hypertension on a
de novo basis.
If the benefit requested on appeal is not granted to the
veteran's satisfaction, the VBA AMC should issue a
supplemental statement of the case (SSOC). The SSOC must
contain notice of all relevant actions taken on the claim for
benefits, to include a summary of the evidence and applicable
law and regulations pertinent to the issue currently on
appeal. A reasonable period of time for a response should be
afforded. Thereafter, the case should be returned to the
Board for further appellate review, if otherwise in order.
By this remand, the Board intimates no opinion as to any
final outcome warranted. No action is required of the
appellant until he is notified by the VABA AMC; however, the
veteran is again notified that failure to report for a
scheduled VA examination(s) without good cause shown may
adversely affect the outcome of his claim for service
connection for hypertension. 38 C.F.R. § 3.655 (2003).
______________________________________________
RONALD R. BOSCH
Veterans Law Judge, Board of Veterans' Appeals
Department of Veterans Affairs
YOUR RIGHTS TO APPEAL OUR DECISION
The attached decision by the Board of Veterans' Appeals (BVA or Board) is
the final decision for all issues addressed in the "Order" section of the
decision. The Board may also choose to remand an issue or issues to the
local VA office for additional development. If the Board did this in your
case, then a "Remand" section follows the "Order." However, you cannot
appeal an issue remanded to the local VA office because a remand is not a
final decision. The advice below on how to appeal a claim applies only to
issues that were allowed, denied, or dismissed in the "Order."
If you are satisfied with the outcome of your appeal, you do not need to do
anything. We will return your file to your local VA office to implement
the BVA's decision. However, if you are not satisfied with the Board's
decision on any or all of the issues allowed, denied, or dismissed, you
have the following options, which are listed in no particular order of
importance:
? Appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims
(Court)
? File with the Board a motion for reconsideration of this decision
? File with the Board a motion to vacate this decision
? File with the Board a motion for revision of this decision based on
clear and unmistakable error.
Although it would not affect this BVA decision, you may choose to also:
? Reopen your claim at the local VA office by submitting new and
material evidence.
There is no time limit for filing a motion for reconsideration, a motion to
vacate, or a motion for revision based on clear and unmistakable error with
the Board, or a claim to reopen at the local VA office. None of these
things is mutually exclusive - you can do all five things at the same time
if you wish. However, if you file a Notice of Appeal with the Court and a
motion with the Board at the same time, this may delay your case because of
jurisdictional conflicts. If you file a Notice of Appeal with the Court
before you file a motion with the BVA, the BVA will not be able to consider
your motion without the Court's permission.
How long do I have to start my appeal to the Court? You have 120 days from
the date this decision was mailed to you (as shown on the first page of
this decision) to file a Notice of Appeal with the United States Court of
Appeals for Veterans Claims. If you also want to file a motion for
reconsideration or a motion to vacate, you will still have time to appeal
to the Court. As long as you file your motion(s) with the Board within 120
days of the date this decision was mailed to you, you will then have
another 120 days from the date the BVA decides the motion for
reconsideration or the motion to vacate to appeal to the Court. You should
know that even if you have a representative, as discussed below, it is your
responsibility to make sure that your appeal to Court is filed on time.
How do I appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims?
Send your Notice of Appeal to the Court at:
Clerk, U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims
625 Indiana Avenue, NW, Suite 900
Washington, DC 20004-2950
You can get information about the Notice of Appeal, the procedure for
filing a Notice of Appeal, the filing fee (or a motion to waive the filing
fee if payment would cause financial hardship), and other matters covered
by the Court's rules directly from the Court. You can also get this
information from the Court's web site on the Internet at
www.vetapp.uscourts.gov, and you can download forms directly from that
website. The Court's facsimile number is (202) 501-5848.
To ensure full protection of your right of appeal to the Court, you must
file your Notice of Appeal with the Court, not with the Board, or any other
VA office.
How do I file a motion for reconsideration? You can file a motion asking
the BVA to reconsider any part of this decision by writing a letter to the
BVA stating why you believe that the BVA committed an obvious error of fact
or law in this decision, or stating that new and material military service
records have been discovered that apply to your appeal. If the BVA has
decided more than one issue, be sure to tell us which issue(s) you want
reconsidered. Send your letter to:
Director, Management and Administration (014)
Board of Veterans' Appeals
810 Vermont Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20420
VA
FORM
JUN
2003
(RS)
4597
Page
1
CONTINUED
Remember, the Board places no time limit on filing a motion for
reconsideration, and you can do this at any time. However, if you also plan
to appeal this decision to the Court, you must file your motion within 120
days from the date of this decision.
How do I file a motion to vacate? You can file a motion asking the BVA to
vacate any part of this decision by writing a letter to the BVA stating why
you believe you were denied due process of law during your appeal. For
example, you were denied your right to representation through action or
inaction by VA personnel, you were not provided a Statement of the Case or
Supplemental Statement of the Case, or you did not get a personal hearing
that you requested. You can also file a motion to vacate any part of this
decision on the basis that the Board allowed benefits based on false or
fraudulent evidence. Send this motion to the address above for the
Director, Management and Administration, at the Board. Remember, the Board
places no time limit on filing a motion to vacate, and you can do this at
any time. However, if you also plan to appeal this decision to the Court,
you must file your motion within 120 days from the date of this decision.
How do I file a motion to revise the Board's decision on the basis of clear
and unmistakable error? You can file a motion asking that the Board revise
this decision if you believe that the decision is based on "clear and
unmistakable error" (CUE). Send this motion to the address above for the
Director, Management and Administration, at the Board. You should be
careful when preparing such a motion because it must meet specific
requirements, and the Board will not review a final decision on this basis
more than once. You should carefully review the Board's Rules of Practice
on CUE, 38 C.F.R. 20.1400 -- 20.1411, and seek help from a qualified
representative before filing such a motion. See discussion on
representation below. Remember, the Board places no time limit on filing a
CUE review motion, and you can do this at any time.
How do I reopen my claim? You can ask your local VA office to reopen your
claim by simply sending them a statement indicating that you want to reopen
your claim. However, to be successful in reopening your claim, you must
submit new and material evidence to that office. See 38 C.F.R. 3.156(a).
Can someone represent me in my appeal? Yes. You can always represent
yourself in any claim before VA, including the BVA, but you can also
appoint someone to represent you. An accredited representative of a
recognized service organization may represent you free of charge. VA
approves these organizations to help veterans, service members, and
dependents prepare their claims and present them to VA. An accredited
representative works for the service organization and knows how to prepare
and present claims. You can find a listing of these organizations on the
Internet at: www.va.gov/vso. You can also choose to be represented by a
private attorney or by an "agent." (An agent is a person who is not a
lawyer, but is specially accredited by VA.)
If you want someone to represent you before the Court, rather than before
VA, then you can get information on how to do so by writing directly to the
Court. Upon request, the Court will provide you with a state-by-state
listing of persons admitted to practice before the Court who have indicated
their availability to represent appellants. This information is also
provided on the Court's website at www.vetapp.uscourts.gov.
Do I have to pay an attorney or agent to represent me? Except for a claim
involving a home or small business VA loan under Chapter 37 of title 38,
United States Code, attorneys or agents cannot charge you a fee or accept
payment for services they provide before the date BVA makes a final
decision on your appeal. If you hire an attorney or accredited agent within
1 year of a final BVA decision, then the attorney or agent is allowed to
charge you a fee for representing you before VA in most situations. An
attorney can also charge you for representing you before the Court. VA
cannot pay fees of attorneys or agents.
Fee for VA home and small business loan cases: An attorney or agent may
charge you a reasonable fee for services involving a VA home loan or small
business loan. For more information, read section 5904, title 38, United
States Code.
In all cases, a copy of any fee agreement between you and an attorney or
accredited agent must be sent to:
Office of the Senior Deputy Vice Chairman (012)
Board of Veterans' Appeals
810 Vermont Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20420
The Board may decide, on its own, to review a fee agreement for
reasonableness, or you or your attorney or agent can file a motion asking
the Board to do so. Send such a motion to the address above for the Office
of the Senior Deputy Vice Chairman at the Board.
VA
FORM
JUN
2003
(RS)
4597
Page
2